Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 September 30, 1998 GSBCA 14674-RELO In the Matter of PAMELA JOHNSON Pamela Johnson, Georgetown, TX, Claimant. Sandra S. Williams, Authorized Certifying Officer, National Finance Center, New Orleans, LA, appearing for Department of Agriculture. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). A certifying officer of the Department of Agriculture asks the Board for an opinion, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3529 (Supp. II 1996), regarding the agency's authority to reimburse Pamela Johnson for certain expenses this employee incurred in 1995, while being transferred from one permanent duty station (Waco, Texas) to another (Georgetown, Texas). The expenses pertain to the relocation of Ms. Johnson's mother. We conclude that the costs associated with the mother's move are generally reimbursable, since the mother was a dependent of the employee and a member of her household, but that the expenses of settling the unexpired lease of the apartment in which the mother resided are not reimbursable. While Ms. Johnson was living in Waco, her mother was involved in a serious automobile accident and lost the ability to care for herself. Ms. Johnson leased an apartment near her own home to serve as her mother's residence. She and her husband provided the majority of her mother's financial support, paid the rent for the apartment, employed individuals to care for her mother, prepared all her mother's meals, and claimed her mother as a dependent on federal income tax returns. When Ms. Johnson was transferred to Georgetown, her mother moved with her and became a resident of the Johnsons' house. The agency reimbursed Ms. Johnson for all relocation expenses she claimed, including those pertaining to her mother's move, except for the cost of settling the unexpired lease. It now asks whether these actions were appropriate. In paying for the costs of the mother's move generally, the agency acted in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). Statute requires agencies to pay travel and transportation expenses, and other specified relocation costs, of employees they transfer in the interest of the Government from one permanent duty station to another, and of members of those employees' immediate families. 5 U.S.C. 5724, 5724a (1994). The FTR, which implements the statute, defines the term "immediate family" to include "[a]ny of the following named members of the employee's household at the time he/she reports for duty at the new permanent duty station." Among the named members are "Dependent parents . . . of the employee or employee's spouse." 41 CFR 302-1.4(f)(1) (1994). The regulation further explains that generally, parents shall be considered dependents of the employee if they either "receive at least 51 percent of their support from the employee or employee's spouse" or "are members of the employee's household and, in addition to their own income, receive support (less than 51 percent) from the employee or employee's spouse without which they would be unable to maintain a reasonable standard of living." Id. 302-1.4(f)(2).[foot #] 1 Under this standard, we have no hesitation in finding that the agency correctly decided that generally, Ms. Johnson should have been (as she was) reimbursed for costs she incurred in relocating her mother to the new permanent duty station (Georgetown). Ms. Johnson's mother was clearly a dependent parent under the first prong of the dependency test -- she received more than 51 percent of her support from Ms. Johnson and her husband. She was also a member of the Johnson household at the time Ms. Johnson reported for duty at her new duty station. She was therefore, by the FTR's standards, a member of Ms. Johnson's "immediate family." Our conclusion as to the place of Ms. Johnson's mother in the family does not compel a determination that the agency should pay for the expenses the employee incurred in settling the unexpired lease on the mother's apartment, however. The FTR ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Curiously, a recent amendment to the FTR adds a glossary section which defines the term "immediate family" by restating the basic definition recited above but eliminating the explanatory language that accompanies it. 63 Fed. Reg. 15,950, 15,952 (1998) (to be codified at 41 CFR 300-3.1). The regulation now contains two definitions of the term, one with the explanation and one without it. The authors of the rule have not provided any commentary as to why they have revised the FTR in this way, or what effect they intend the elimination of the explanatory material (in one of the definitional provisions) to have. We do not explore the issue here, since the agency's authority to reimburse Ms. Johnson for relocation expenses she incurred is governed by the regulation as it stood when she was transferred, in 1995. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- provides that reimbursement for costs of residence transactions associated with an employee's transfer are limited to those -- required to be paid by [the employee] in connection with the sale of one residence at his/her old official station, for purchase (including construction) of one dwelling at his/her new official station, or for the settlement of an unexpired lease involving his/her residence or a lot on which a mobile home used as his/her residence was located at the old official station. 41 CFR 302-6.1. This regulation clearly restricts reimbursement to costs associated with a single residence at each duty station and mandates that the residence be that of the employee himself (or herself). Provided that all requirements of the regulation were met, the agency was obligated to pay for costs associated with Ms. Johnson's leaving her own home in Waco -- by sale (if she owned it) or in settling an unexpired lease (if she rented it). The FTR does not permit reimbursement of costs involved in leaving a second home at the same duty station, however. Thus, the agency properly refused to repay costs associated with the lease on the apartment Ms. Johnson rented for her mother's residence in Waco. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge